Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
This was Gottstein but needs to change to what?
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 274-9493

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


David Alan Linden v Municipality of Anchorage (11/5/2021) ap-2712

David Alan Linden v Municipality of Anchorage (11/5/2021) ap-2712

                                                 NOTICE
  

         The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the  

        Pacific Reporter.  Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal  

        errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts:  



                                303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501
  

                                          Fax:  (907) 264-0878
  

                                  E-mail:  corrections @ akcourts.gov
  



               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



DAVID ALAN LINDEN,  

                                                               Court of Appeals No. A-13097  

                                 Appellant,                  Trial Court No. 3AN-17-00680 CR  



                         v.  

                                                                          O P I N I O N  

MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,  



                                 Appellee.                     No. 2712 - November 5, 2021  



                 Appeal   from    the   District    Court,   Third   Judicial   District,  

                 Anchorage, Brian K. Clark, Judge.  



                 Appearances:        Matthew   A.   Michalski,   Attorney   at   Law,  

                                                                                  

                 Anchorage,  for  the  Appellant.    Sarah  E.  Stanley,  Municipal  

                 Prosecutor,   and   Kathryn   R.   Vogel,   Municipal   Attorney,  

                 Anchorage, for the Appellee.  



                 Before:   Allard, Chief  Judge,  and Wollenberg and Harbison,  

                                                       

                 Judges.  



                 Judge WOLLENBERG.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                         David Alan Linden assaulted his girlfriend in the presence of their nine-                                                       



month-old child.                 Based on this incident, a jury found Linden guilty of both assault and                                                     



                                                                                                                                                                 1  

family violence under the Anchorage Municipal Code, but acquitted him of child abuse.                                                                               



                                                                                                                                                           

                         At trial, Linden's girlfriend, Mary Otton, testified that she saw Linden slap  



                                                                                                                                                      

their infant son, wrap him in a blanket from head-to-toe, and place him in a plastic  



                                                                                                                                                          

storage container before attempting to cover the container with a lid.  When Otton tried  



                                                                                                                                                             

to intervene, Linden held her down and punched her.  According to Otton, during the  



                                                                                                                                                           

ensuing altercation, Linden tore off Otton's shirt and struck her twice in the head and  



                                                                                                                                                                    

several times in the lower back, causing injuries which required later medical treatment.  



                                                                                                                                                           

The altercation started in the bedroom of their shared apartment, where the child was  



                                                                                                                                                        

present, and then continued into the living room and outside of the building when Otton  



               

tried to escape.  



                                                                                                                                                 

                         Following the verdicts, Linden argued that, under the double jeopardy  



                                                                                                                                                   

clauses of both the Alaska and United States Constitutions,thedistrictcourt was required  



                                                                                                                                                       2  

                                                                                                                                                            

to merge the guilty verdicts for assault and family violence into a single conviction.                                                                    The  



                                                                                                                                                    

court disagreed, ruling that the crime of family violence protected a societal interest  



                                                                                                                                     

distinct from assault and that, under the facts of this case, the crime of family violence  



                                                                                                                                                             

had a different victim, the child.  The court therefore entered separate convictions for  



                                    

assault and family violence.  



                                                                                                                                                   

                         Linden now appeals. We conclude that Linden properly received separate  



                                                                                                                    

convictions for assault and family violence, and we therefore affirm.  



       1    Anchorage  Municipal  Code  (AMC)  08.10.010(B)(1)  and  AMC  08.10.050(B),  



respectively. The jury also found Linden guilty of tampering with official proceedings under  

                                                                                         

AMC 08.30.080(A)(3), but this conviction is not implicated by Linden's appeal.  



      2     U.S. Const. amend. V; Alaska Const. art. I, § 9.  



                                                                             - 2 -                                                                        2712
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

              Our analysis of Linden's claim                        



                            Under both the United States and the Alaska Constitutions, a person may                                                                         



                                                                                                           3  

not be twice put in jeopardy "for the same offense."                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                               This prohibition protects not only  



                                                                                                                                                                                

against successive prosecutions for the "same offense" following a conviction or an  



                                                                                                                                                                      

acquittal, but also against multiple convictions and punishments for charges that amount  



                                                                                                     4  

                                                                                                                                                                        

to the "same offense" within a single prosecution.                                                       The question presented in this appeal  



                                                                                                                                                                               

is whether the Anchorage municipal crimes of family violence and assault constitute the  



                                                                                                                                                                        

"same offense" for purposes of the prohibition on imposing multiplepunishments within  



                  

a single prosecution.  



                                                                                                                

                            Under the Anchorage Municipal Code, "[a] person commits the crime of  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

family violence when the person commits the crime of assault . . . with knowledge or  



                                                                                                                      5  

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                          A person commits the crime  

reckless disregard of the presence of a child or children." 



                                                                                                                                                                      

of assault, in relevant part, when the person "recklessly causes physical injury to another  

person."6  



                                                                                                                                                                          

                            Based on these provisions in the code, it is impossible to commit the crime  



                                                                                                                                                             

of family violence without also committing the crime of assault. Given this relationship  



       3      U.S. Const. amend. V ("No person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be     



twice put in jeopardy of life or limb[.]"); Alaska Const. art. I, § 9 ("No person shall be put  

in  jeopardy   twice  for  the  same  offense.").    The  double  jeopardy   clause  of   the  Fifth  

                                                                                                                                                          

Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.  See Benton v.  

Maryland , 395 U.S. 784 (1969).  



       4      See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969); Todd v. State, 917 P.2d 674,  



677, 681 (Alaska 1996).  



       5      AMC 08.10.050(B).  For purposes of the offense of family violence, "presence of a  

                                                                                                                       

child or children" is defined as "when a child or children are in the dwelling, vehicle, or other  

place where the assault has occurred."  AMC 08.10.050(c).  



       6      AMC 08.10.010(B)(1).  



                                                                                     -  3 -                                                                                2712
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

between the offenses, Linden argues that assault is a lesser included offense of family                                                                        



violence and that his convictions for assault and family violence must therefore merge.                                                                        



                           But the relationship between the elements of the two offenses does not                                                                    



                                                                                                                     7  

                                                                                                                                                                      

alone answer the question of whether the offenses merge.                                                                  We therefore turn to the  



                                                                                                                                                

analysis of Linden's claim under both state and federal double jeopardy law.  



                                                                                                                         

             Do the offenses merge under Alaska double jeopardy law?  



                                                                                                                                                                    

                           TheAlaskaSupremeCourt'sdecision in Whittonv.State is theseminal case  



                                                                                                                                                                     

on the doctrine of merger - i.e., whether two crimes that violate separate statutes and  



                                                                                                                                                          

are charged  in  a single prosecution constitute a single offense for double jeopardy  



                                                                                8  

                                                                                   

purposes under the Alaska Constitution. 



                                                                                                                                                          

                          Under  the  Whitton test,  a  court  must  compare  the  different  statutory  



provisions, as applied to the facts of the case, and evaluate any differences in intent or  



                                                                                                               9  

                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                   If the differences in intent or  

conduct in light of the societal interests to be vindicated. 



                                                                                                                                                                  

conduct are "insignificant or insubstantial" in relation to the societal interests, the court  



                                                                                              10  

                                                                             

may only enter a single conviction and sentence.                                                                                                       

                                                                                                   "The social interests to be considered  



                        

. . . include the nature of personal, property or other rights sought to be protected, and  



                                                                                                                                                        

the broad objectives of criminal law such as punishment of the criminal for his crime,  



                                                                                                                                     11  

                                                                                                                     

rehabilitation of the criminal, and the prevention of future crimes." 



       7     See Todd, 917 P.2d at 677, 681.  



       8      Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302, 312 (Alaska 1970).  



       9     Id.  



       10    Id. at 312; see also Rofkar v. State, 273 P.3d 1140, 1143 (Alaska 2012).  



       11     Whitton, 479 P.2d at 312.  



                                                                                 - 4 -                                                                             2712
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                           The supreme court's decision in  Tuckfield v. State                                                   provides the strongest     

support for Linden's position that his two convictions must merge.                                                                      12                               

                                                                                                                                             In Tuckfield, the  



                                                                                                                                                                           

supreme court stated, "It is well settled that double jeopardy is violated by conviction of  



                                                                                                                                                                     

both  an  offense  and  a  lesser  included  offense,  unless  those  convictions  arise  from  



                                      13  

                                                                                                                                                       

                                           The court characterized the "governing principle" for determining  

separate conduct." 



                                                                                                                                                                           

whether one offense is a lesser included offense of another as "whether the facts in  



                                                                                                                                                                  

evidence demonstrate one could have committed the greater offense without also having  



                                                                                          14  

                                                                 

committed the offense of lesser magnitude." 



                                                                                                                                                       

                           Based  solely  on  Tuckfield,  one  could  argue  that  Linden's  convictions  



                                                                                                                                                                         

should merge. But the supreme court has subsequently recognized that Whitton sets out  



                                                                                                                                                               

"the  sole  test  for  multiple  punishment  of  the  same  offense  under  the  Alaska  



                             15  

                                                                                                                                                                       

Constitution."                      The  court  has  also  clarified  that,  under  Whitton,  a  single  act  can  



                                                                                    16  

                                                           

potentially result in multiple convictions. 



       12     Tuckfield v. State, 621 P.2d 1350, 1352-53 (Alaska 1981).  



       13    Id. at 1352.  



       14    Id.  



       15    Johnson v. State , 328 P.3d 77, 88 & nn.63-64 (Alaska 2014); see also Todd v. State,  



917 P.2d 674, 681-83 (Alaska 1996) (recognizing that "Whitton is the seminal case and still  

controlling precedent in this area of law").  



       16     See State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604, 607-09 (Alaska 1986).    The supreme court has   



disavowed any suggestion in its caselaw that the                                            Whitton  test does not apply when one statute   

has been violated by a single course of conduct resulting in multiple injuries or deaths.                                                                   

Johnson , 328 P.3d at 88 n.63 (discussing Rofkar v. State                                                         , 273 P.3d 1140, 1143 (Alaska     

2012)).  Rather, the supreme court has said, "the  Whitton test applies equally well in cases  

of multiple statutes, multiple counts of violating a single statute, and multiple victims or lone     

victims."  Id.  



                                                                                   -  5 -                                                                             2712
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                    In   Todd  v.  State,  decided  fifteen  years a   fter   Tuckfield,  the  supreme  court   



declined to  follow  a  strict  interpretation  of  Tuckfield  and  declared  that  "Whitton  is  the  

seminal   case   and   still   controlling  precedent  in  this   area   of  law."17  

                                                                                                      The  defendants  in  



Todd  were  convicted  of  both  felony  murder  (with  robbery  as  the  predicate  felony)  and  



             18  

                                                                                                                                

robbery.          The supreme court acknowledged that a defendant cannot be convicted of  



                                                                                                                               

felony  murder  with  robbery  as  a  predicate  without  also  having  been  convicted  of  



             19  

robbery.         But  the  court  nevertheless  concluded  that  robbery  was  not  a  lesser  included  



offense  of  felony  murder.   The  court  reached  its  conclusion,  in  part,  by  considering  the  



legislative   intent   behind   the   felony   murder   statute,  explaining,   "The   felony-murder  



provision  does  not  overlap  with  other  offenses  but  rather  enhances them, and   .   .   .  the  

intent  of  the  legislature  to  allow  multiple  punishments  is  clear."20  



                                                                                                                    

                    The supreme court has also applied Whitton in concluding that a defendant  



                                                                                                                            

who injures multiple people through a single act commits a separate offense as to each  



                                                                                                                         

victim.  Initially, in Thessen v. State, the court held that only a single conviction should  



                                                                                                                    

enter when, through a single act without intent to harm multiple victims, the defendant  



                                      21  

                           

injures  multiple  people.                                                                                           

                                            But  in  State  v.  Dunlop,  the  court  overruled  Thessen,  



                                                                                                                             

explaining,  "Instead  of  focusing  on  the  accused's  intent  we  must  look  at  the  



                                                                                                                          

consequences.  Where an act of violence injures multiple victims, there are as many  



     17   Todd, 917 P.2d at 681-83.  



     18   Id. at 676.  



     19   Id. at 682.  



     20   Id.  



     21   Thessen v. State, 508 P.2d 1192, 1195 (Alaska 1973), overruled by State v. Dunlop,  



721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986).  



                                                              -  6 -                                                        2712
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                22  

punishable  offenses  as  there  are  victims."                     Accordingly,  under  Dunlop,  "[t]he  identity  



of   the   victim   represents   different   conduct   -   it   represents   conduct   directed   at   that  

victim,"  and  entry  of  conviction  for  each  victim  is  appropriate.23  



                                                                                                                                  

                     Under  Whitton - as interpreted and applied in Todd and Dunlop - we  



                                                                                                                                  

must  look to the  legislative history  of the  family violence  ordinance,  as well  as the  



                                                                                                                                   

identified harm of Linden's actions in light of the intent and conduct encompassed by the  



                                                                                                              

law's provisions, in order to determine how many offenses occurred.  



                                                                                                                                    24  

                                                                                                                            

                     The Anchorage Assembly created the crime of family violence in 2000.                                               



                                                                                                                                  

The new crime was part of a package of offenses aimed specifically at redrafting the  



                                     25  

                                                                                                                        

child abuse ordinances.                   Other offenses enacted or amended by the same ordinance  



                                                      26                     27  

                                                                                                                    

                                                         child neglect,         and contributing to the delinquency  

included the offense of child abuse, 



                 28  

        

of a minor. 



     22   Dunlop, 721 P.2d at 609 (emphasis in original).  



     23   Id.  In Dunlop, the supreme court initially disclaimed its reliance on                                Whitton.  Id. at  



608 n.17; see also Rofkar v. State, 273 P.3d 1140, 1143 (Alaska 2012) ("Dunlop  clarified that  

the   Whitton  test does not apply where one statute has been violated by a single course of                

conduct that results in multiple deaths or injuries[.]").  But in Johnson v. State , the supreme  

court described Dunlop as an application of the                         Whitton test and "disavow[ed] the dicta in  

Rofkar  that indicates that different tests for multiple punishment apply in different contexts."   

Johnson v. State , 328 P.3d 77, 88 & n.63 (Alaska 2014).  



     24   Anchorage Ordinance (AO) No. 2000-95, § 5 (July 18, 2000).  



     25   Id. ; Municipality of Anchorage, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 565-2000, AO  

                                                                                                   

2000-95; Revisions to Title 8 (May 23, 2000).  



     26   AMC 08.10.030 (repealed and reenacted).  



     27   AMC 08.10.040.  



     28   AMC 08.10.060; see AO No. 2000-95 at §§ 1, 4, 6.  



                                                                -  7 -                                                         2712
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                            An   Assembly   Memorandum   prepared   for   the   meeting  at   which   the  



ordinance was first introduced explained that each new section criminalizing conduct                                                                                



involving a child was "aimed at a specific type of harm":                                                



                            The   original   code   section  [criminalizing   child   abuse]   is  

                            repealed and four new sections, each aimed at a specific type                                                        

                            of harm, are enacted.                        The changes are designed to provide a                                         

                            comprehensive    enforcement   tool   that    reflects    increased  

                            awareness   of   the   problems   and   seeks  to   more   accurately  

                            address  the   distinctions   between   physical   abuse,   physical  

                            neglect, and other harms which may occur.                                                 [29]  



                                                                                                                                                                          

                            This memorandum, and thehistoricalcontext fortheenactment ofthecrime  



                                                                                                                                                              

of  family  violence,  demonstrate  that  the  Anchorage  Assembly  made  a  legislative  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

determination that the conduct constituting family violence - assault in the presence of  



                                                                                                                                                                      

a child - constitutes a distinctly separate harm against a child, one which the current  



                                                                                                                                                                        

assault offense did not sufficiently vindicate (at least when the child was not the victim  



              

of the assault).  



                                                                                                                                                                    

                            This conclusionisfurthersupportedbytheAnchorageAssembly's decision  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

to make both assault and family violence class A misdemeanors, and to set out both as  



                                                                                                                                                                            

punishable under  AMC 08.05.020(H)(1),  with  no  additional minimum penalty that  



                                                                           30  

                                                                                                                                                                   

otherwise distinguishes the offenses.                                           If the new crime of family violence were intended  



                                                                                                                                                    

to overlap with assault, rather than enhance it, then the entire crime of family violence  



       29     Assembly Memorandum No. AM 565-2000, at 1.   



       30     See AMC 08.10.010(E); AMC 08.10.050(D); AMC 08.05.025.  



                                                                                     -  8 -                                                                                2712
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                                                 31  

would   be   surplusage.                                The   Assembly   must   therefore   have   intended   for   separate  

convictions when the assault and family violence resulted in separate injuries.                                                                                            32  



                                                                                                                                                                                

                             Here, Lindencaused injurytohis girlfriendby assaulting her, and hecaused  



                                                                                                                                                                    

injury to his child by committing the assault in the presence of his child.  In essence,  



                                                                                                                                                                      

under the facts of this case, the two crimes had separate victims and thus constituted  



                                         

separate offenses.  



                                                                                                                                                                           

                             Wethereforeconcludethat, under the facts of this case, thedoublejeopardy  



                                                                                                                                                                                       

clause of the Alaska Constitution does not require merger of Linden's convictions for  



                                          

assault and family violence.  



                                                                                                                                      

               Do the offenses merge under federal double jeopardy law?  



                                                                                                                                                                                

                             In  Blockburger  v.  United  States,  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  



                                                                                                                                                                                

announced a test for determining whether two statutory provisions constitute the "same  



                                                                                                                                                                                        

offense" under the federal constitution:  "The applicable rule is that, where the same act  



                                                                                                                                                                                         

or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be  



        31     See Lampkin v. State, 141 P.3d 362, 364 (Alaska App. 2006) (recognizing that if the   



crime of promoting contraband merged with the crime of fourth-degree controlled substance                             

misconduct - both class C felonies - the practical effect would be that prisoners would   

face no greater punishment for possessing the drugs in jail than if they had possessed the                                                                                             

drugs elsewhere).  



        32     See Todd v. State, 917 P.2d 674, 682 (Alaska 1996) ("The felony-murder provision  



does not overlap with other offenses but rather enhances them, and, as we noted above, the  

intent of the legislature to allow multiple punishments is clear."); see also Kodiak Island  

                                                                                                                                             

Borough v. Roe, 63 P.3d 1009, 1014 n.16 (Alaska 2003) ("We assume that words added to  

a statute are not mere surplusage.").  



                                                                                          -  9 -                                                                                    2712
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

applied   to   determine   whether  there   are   two   offenses   or   only   one,   is   whether   each  



                                                                                                                      33  

provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."                                                               



                                                                                                                                                                    

                          In subsequent cases, however, the Supreme Court has clarified that, in the  



                                                                                                                                                            

context of multiple punishments arising from a single prosecution - i.e., in the merger  



                                                                                                                                                                       

context - the role of the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution is limited to  



                                                                                                                                                                       34  

                                                                                                                                                                            

protecting adefendant against receiving morepunishment than thelegislatureintended. 



                                                                                                                                                  

Thus, in the single-prosecution context, the Supreme Court has treated the Blockburger  



                                                                                                                                            

test as a tool of statutory interpretation - i.e., a tool for determining, presumptively,  



                                                                                                                                                                   

whether the legislature intended to preclude separate conviction and punishment for two  

offenses.35  



       33    Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).  



       34    See, e.g.,  Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 779 (1985) ("Insofar as the question  



is one of legislative intent, the                          Blockburger  presumption must of course yield to a plainly                                        

expressed contrary view on the part of Congress.");                                              Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359, 368- 

69 (1983) ("Where . . . a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two     

statutes,  regardless  of   whether  those  two  statutes  proscribe  the  'same'  conduct  under  

Blockburger, a court's task of statutory construction is at an end and the prosecutor may seek                                                                     

and the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishment under such statutes in a single     

trial."); Albernaz v. United States , 450 U.S. 333, 340 (1981) ("The Blockburger   test . . .   

should  not  be  controlling  where,  for  example,  there  is  a   clear   indication  of   contrary  

legislative intent."); see also Todd                             , 917 P.2d at 677 ("Any indication the Court once may       

have given that Blockburger provided a unitary test for determining whether offenses were     

the same and whether the Double Jeopardy Clause was violated has since been disavowed.").   



       35    Albernaz , 450 U.S. at 340 ("The Blockburger test is a 'rule of statutory construction,'  

                                                                                                                                                 

and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be  

                                                                   

controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent."); see  

                                                                                                                               

also  Ball  v.  United  States,  470  U.S.  856,  861  (1985)  ("For  purposes  of  applying  the  

                                                                                                                                                 

Blockburger test in this setting as a means of ascertaining congressional intent, 'punishment'  

                                                                                   

must be the equivalent of a criminal conviction and not simply the imposition of sentence.").  

                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                               -  10 -                                                                           2712
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                        If the offenses fail the               Blockburger  test -                i.e., if only one of the offenses             



contains an element that the other does not -then multiple punishments and convictions                                               



                                             36  

are presumptively barred.                                                                                                                      

                                                 But this presumption is rebuttable by clear legislative intent  



                                                                                                                                               

to authorize separate punishments: "where two statutory provisions proscribe the 'same  



                                                                                                                                                     

offense,' they are construed not to authorize cumulative punishments in the absence of  



                                                                                   37  

                                                                                                                                                  

a clear indication of contrary legislative intent."                                    In other words, "the Blockburger rule  



                                                                                                                                              

is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the  



                                   38  

                    

legislative history." 



                                                                                                                                          

                        The crimes of assault and family violence constitute the "same offense"  



                                                                                                                                                   

under the Blockburger test:  the crime of assault does not require proof of a fact that the  



                                                                                                                                            

crime of family violence does not also require.  But, for the reasons we have already  



                                                                                                                                         

discussed,  both  the  statutory  context  and  legislative  history  of  the  family  violence  



                                                                                                                                                  

ordinance  demonstrate  a  clear  legislative  intent  to  allow  multiple  punishments  and  



                                                                                                                                                    

convictions under Alaska law. The Assembly Memorandumexpressly indicated that the  



                                                                                                                                       

family violence ordinance was aimed at "a specific type of harm" - i.e., a "different  



                                                           

societal interest" for purposes of Whitton.  And the enactment of a new crime, with an  



                                                                                                                                                   

equivalent penalty, demonstrates an intent that the offense of family violence would not  



                                                                  

generally merge with the underlying assault.  



      36    Todd, 917 P.2d at 678 (citing Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92 (1980)).  



      37    Whalen, 445 U.S. at 692.  



      38    Garrett, 471 U.S. at 779; Hunter, 459 U.S. at 368-69; see also Starkweather v. State,  



244  P.3d  522,  529  (Alaska  App.  2010)  ("[U]nder  the  federal  double  jeopardy test,  the  

                                                                                                                                           

question of whether the law permits separate convictions and punishments is answered by  

                                                                                                  

ascertaining            whether         the      legislature          intended         to     allow       separate         convictions            and  

                                                                                            

punishments.").  



                                                                       -  11 -                                                                  2712
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                                      Because the Assembly intended to allow multiple punishments under the                                                                                                                                   



                                                                                                                                                                                                     39  

applicable   state   law,   the   federal   double   jeopardy   rule   is   satisfied.                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                We  therefore  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

conclude that the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution does not  



                                                                                                                                                                                                           40  

                                                                                                                                                                                  

require merger of Linden's convictions for assault and family violence. 



                   Conclusion  



                                                                                                                                              

                                      The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  



          39       Hunter, 459 U.S. at 368.  



          40       The fact that the two charges, when pursued in a single prosecution, do not merge                                                                                                                                 



does not necessarily mean that the Municipality can pursue the two charges in successive                                              

prosecutions.  See  5 Wayne LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 17.4(b), at 87-107 (4th ed.  

2015) (discussing the progression of federal case law regarding the double jeopardy clause                                                                                                                                            

in the successive prosecution context);                                                                State v. Williams, 730 P.2d 806, 806-07 (Alaska 1987)   

(concluding  that  separate  prosecutions  for  two  offenses  based  on  essentially   the   same  

evidence violated the double jeopardy clause of the Alaska Constitution).  



                                                                                                                   -  12 -                                                                                                                2712
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC